4 ms·

He hasn't explained because it is a ridiculous comparison. Husband and wife relationships are long term loving partnerships. Employer-employee relationships are

He hasn't explained because it is a ridiculous comparison. Husband and wife relationships are long term loving partnerships. Employer-employee relationships are business transactions. A good husband/wife shares rewards fairly equally. An employer rarely distributes profit equally. A good husband/wife team both have a large degree of autonomy and decision making power. In an employee-employer relationship this power predominantly resides with the employer. A good husband/wife stands by their partner in times of trouble. An employer will happily jettison under-performing employees. A good husband/wife will sacrifice some level of material comfort in order to help their partner improve themselves. Employers will not provide training etc unless it is in their best short term interests. Etc etc etc. Fact is jobs are nothing like marriage. Likewise it is not about advertising in unwelcome places. Google is not advertising to Apple; they are advertising to individuals who happen to work at Apple. The party, Apple, that considers it unwelcome is a third party to the advertising. It is frankly none of their business. It is unwelcome to Apple because it stops them from underpaying their staff. And finally there is a big difference between actions that enhance the market and allow it to operate efficiently and negative market actions. If you are worth $200,000 to Apple but only $100,000 to Google then it is a better allocation of capital for you to work at Apple. If you are worth that money to Google then they can easily counter offer. This aids market efficiency which is the driver of all our economic growth. This is completely different from trying to steal key players simply to harm your competition. But stopping this key player theft is actually easy via legal and ethical market mechanisms (e.g. vesting options, bonuses on successful completion of key deliverables, fully funded non-competes, actually paying market wages etc).

EGreg 13y ago
sheepmullet - I appreciate your thoughts above but let me highlight the issue in simple terms And finally there is a big difference between actions that enhance the market and allow it to operate efficiently and negative market actions. You see, Google and Apple can very easily advertise openings GENERALLY TO EVERYONE, let's say on a job board. Advertising a position doesn't mean you have to offer it to anyone -- this is technically called Invitation to Treat. Moreover, Google and Apple and any other companies can widely publicize these opportunities. Any employee who is interested in looking around is able to go to a job board or some other marketplace and see the job listings posted there, the same way real estate agents post in MLS. But just like real estate agents would get real pissed off if rival agents hang around their showings and try to poach their clients, the same is true of companies. (Actually, although you say that marriage is completely different, actually the same mechanisms that lead to jealousy and guarding from 3rd parties are in effect.) This is completely different from trying to steal key players simply to harm your competition. THAT IS EXACTLY THE ISSUE. Basically when companies TARGET specific people in other organizations to lure away, it might not be taken kindly. How do you know that Google isn't trying to lure a key member of the Apple team away and pay them a huge salary boost just so Apple's product is now going to have a harder time competing? This is after all competition! But who is it good for? It is good for the small number of people who make themselves indispensable in a company. But it destabilizes the very teams that are building the products that help the public, so the vast majority of people is harmed by this practice. Or at the very least it's not clear that they benefit enough to make a law banning agreements to scale back poaching key people.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  The companies are free to stop cold-calling people entirely of their own volition. That isn't what happened here. A subset of companies agreed among themselves to not cold call eachother's employees. This is a conspiracy in restraint of trade that helps these companies at the expense of employees and other companies not involved in the conspiracy. They are specifically agreeing amongst themselves to not target certain people in violation of normal competitive practices in the relevant market, while continuing the practices with regard to others outside the conspiracy. Much of the time, the distinction between a lawful practice and an unlawful practice is whether two or more companies got together and agreed to engage in the practice. The distinction is important, because independent adoption of a practice by multiple entities is a sign that they are responding to market forces, while collusive adoption of a practice is a sign that they are attempting to distort market forces. This was unambiguously an attempt to distort market forces.
  - EGreg 13y ago
    I am saying that the basis for law itself seems to not be invoked here. The government is the one distorting market forces, what you are describing is emergent behavior which comes out of market forces - companies agree to all sorts of arrangements including buying selling, exclusive service contracts and more. The govt has a rationale for this. The rationale is that most people will benefit from companies competing. I am saying that it hasnt been shown that most people will benefit from companies excessively disrupting each other's teams. The workers are still able to find jobs by SIMPLY BROWSING A MARKETPLACE. We are talking about agreements not to advertise the offers in certain places. The government restricts advertising all the time - for example in south american cities advertising in public places is now illegal. Is that distorting market forces? Well it sets the rules for the market. Here the rule is that companies cannot agree not to cold call each other's employees. I call bullshit on that benefiting anyone but a small group of employees. The teams suffer and the companies suffer and they pass on the cost to everyone.
- sheepmullet 13y ago
  THAT IS EXACTLY THE ISSUE. NO IT ISN'T. Most companies in most industries can hold onto key staff without breaking the law because there are legal mechanisms to keep these staff. This is about trying to keep an entire category of employees (the ones not currently seeking new opportunities) in the dark about market wages and conditions in an effort to hold down general employee wages. Keeping your eye on the market takes time and effort; time and effort that I personally would rather spend with my family. So if somebody is willing to actively search the market for employers paying less than market rates and offer those people a job it is a good thing. But just like real estate agents would get real pissed off if rival agents hang around their showings and try to poach their clients, the same is true of companies. And while they might get pissed this is basic competition and is good for the market. It helps make sure real estate agents do not price/service gouge their clients. After all if the rival cannot offer a better deal then no harm done. Actually, although you say that marriage is completely different, actually the same mechanisms that lead to jealousy and guarding from 3rd parties are in effect You are trying to suggest that because something applies to marriage that it should somehow be ethical in an employer-employee relationship. The leap simply put does not make sense. Or at the very least it's not clear that they benefit enough to make a law banning agreements to scale back poaching key people. It is clear that it distorts the market and holds down wages for employees. There are many legal mechanisms to keep key staff. The fact that these companies resorted to illegal means suggests that they were in fact trying to stop the poaching of normal employees and not just "key staff". Again this behavior is bad for the market.

EGreg 13y ago

sheepmullet - I appreciate your thoughts above but let me highlight the issue in simple terms And finally there is a big difference between actions that enhance the market and allow it to operate efficiently and negative market actions. You see, Google and Apple can very easily advertise openings GENERALLY TO EVERYONE, let's say on a job board. Advertising a position doesn't mean you have to offer it to anyone -- this is technically called Invitation to Treat. Moreover, Google and Apple and any other companies can widely publicize these opportunities. Any employee who is interested in looking around is able to go to a job board or some other marketplace and see the job listings posted there, the same way real estate agents post in MLS. But just like real estate agents would get real pissed off if rival agents hang around their showings and try to poach their clients, the same is true of companies. (Actually, although you say that marriage is completely different, actually the same mechanisms that lead to jealousy and guarding from 3rd parties are in effect.) This is completely different from trying to steal key players simply to harm your competition. THAT IS EXACTLY THE ISSUE. Basically when companies TARGET specific people in other organizations to lure away, it might not be taken kindly. How do you know that Google isn't trying to lure a key member of the Apple team away and pay them a huge salary boost just so Apple's product is now going to have a harder time competing? This is after all competition! But who is it good for? It is good for the small number of people who make themselves indispensable in a company. But it destabilizes the very teams that are building the products that help the public, so the vast majority of people is harmed by this practice. Or at the very least it's not clear that they benefit enough to make a law banning agreements to scale back poaching key people.

nknighthb 13y ago
The companies are free to stop cold-calling people entirely of their own volition. That isn't what happened here. A subset of companies agreed among themselves to not cold call eachother's employees. This is a conspiracy in restraint of trade that helps these companies at the expense of employees and other companies not involved in the conspiracy. They are specifically agreeing amongst themselves to not target certain people in violation of normal competitive practices in the relevant market, while continuing the practices with regard to others outside the conspiracy. Much of the time, the distinction between a lawful practice and an unlawful practice is whether two or more companies got together and agreed to engage in the practice. The distinction is important, because independent adoption of a practice by multiple entities is a sign that they are responding to market forces, while collusive adoption of a practice is a sign that they are attempting to distort market forces. This was unambiguously an attempt to distort market forces.
- EGreg 13y ago
  I am saying that the basis for law itself seems to not be invoked here. The government is the one distorting market forces, what you are describing is emergent behavior which comes out of market forces - companies agree to all sorts of arrangements including buying selling, exclusive service contracts and more. The govt has a rationale for this. The rationale is that most people will benefit from companies competing. I am saying that it hasnt been shown that most people will benefit from companies excessively disrupting each other's teams. The workers are still able to find jobs by SIMPLY BROWSING A MARKETPLACE. We are talking about agreements not to advertise the offers in certain places. The government restricts advertising all the time - for example in south american cities advertising in public places is now illegal. Is that distorting market forces? Well it sets the rules for the market. Here the rule is that companies cannot agree not to cold call each other's employees. I call bullshit on that benefiting anyone but a small group of employees. The teams suffer and the companies suffer and they pass on the cost to everyone.
sheepmullet 13y ago
THAT IS EXACTLY THE ISSUE. NO IT ISN'T. Most companies in most industries can hold onto key staff without breaking the law because there are legal mechanisms to keep these staff. This is about trying to keep an entire category of employees (the ones not currently seeking new opportunities) in the dark about market wages and conditions in an effort to hold down general employee wages. Keeping your eye on the market takes time and effort; time and effort that I personally would rather spend with my family. So if somebody is willing to actively search the market for employers paying less than market rates and offer those people a job it is a good thing. But just like real estate agents would get real pissed off if rival agents hang around their showings and try to poach their clients, the same is true of companies. And while they might get pissed this is basic competition and is good for the market. It helps make sure real estate agents do not price/service gouge their clients. After all if the rival cannot offer a better deal then no harm done. Actually, although you say that marriage is completely different, actually the same mechanisms that lead to jealousy and guarding from 3rd parties are in effect You are trying to suggest that because something applies to marriage that it should somehow be ethical in an employer-employee relationship. The leap simply put does not make sense. Or at the very least it's not clear that they benefit enough to make a law banning agreements to scale back poaching key people. It is clear that it distorts the market and holds down wages for employees. There are many legal mechanisms to keep key staff. The fact that these companies resorted to illegal means suggests that they were in fact trying to stop the poaching of normal employees and not just "key staff". Again this behavior is bad for the market.